VIKTOR YAKUBYAN: GUAM AND GUM: GEORGIA, MOLDOVA AND UKRAINE SUSTAIN OTHERS’ LOSSES
Viktor Yakubyan – expert on South Caucasus
Regnum, Russia
June 24 2006
Any big political event or a chain of such events is interesting
from, at least, two points of view – informational and analytical. If
information is almost simultaneous to the process, analysis comes
much later – not only to reveal the motives of the actors but also
to compare their goals and achievements. In this article, I would
like to analyze the present situation in three CIS states: Moldavia,
Georgia, and Ukraine. No need to remind you about the well-known chain
of events in those countries, you have a detailed media coverage of
it. I would like just to show you the general logic of tendencies
that has led those countries to their present situation.
Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova are three CIS states that have been
in growing political confrontation with Russia for several years
already, with each of them systematically counterpoising its “own”
interests to those of Russia. Experts are unanimous that in this
particular case those “own” interests are tightly bound to the
interests of the Atlantic bloc. The confrontation of those countries
with Russia comes not so much from their wish to cooperate with the
West as from the emphatically mono-vector nature of their foreign
policies. Today almost all the CIS countries – and Russia as well –
are developing their cooperation with NATO, but none of them are trying
to counterpoise polar interests in the situations they objectively
exist in. For example, in its foreign policy Azerbaijan is trying to
avoid collision of the interests of Iran, Russia and the US in its
territory or over its agenda issues. That’s why I am going to analyze
the situation not in terms of the full GUAM format – together with
Azerbaijan – but with focus on GUM – Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova.
In fact, several years have passed since Georgia and Ukraine changed
their governments and the Moldavian president revised his attitude
to Russia in the face of a new presidential election. What have
those countries come to and what have they got from their strategic
Russia-West contraposition?
Georgia
Despite being generally accepted, the view that Ukraine is the leader
in the GUM “confrontational bloc” seems not so very well grounded.
Initially, it was Georgia who took up the role of key resister to
the Russian sway and key political and economic link in the GUAM chain.
Georgia will also be the key respondent if the project fails. Already
today that country is feeling the painful political and economic
consequences of the inflexible policy of its leaders.
At the first glance, the internal political situation in Georgia seems
quite stable and safe for Mikhail Saakashvili, Georgian president
who came into power through popular support. At the same time, the
post-revolution period has seen some remarkable events that forebode
not so much the crisis of government as the crisis of statehood
as such.
After declaring the restoration of the country’s territorial integrity
as his priority, Saakashvili suggested quite an interesting mechanism
of achieving this goal – confrontation with Russia. By declaring that
Georgia has no problems with Abkhazia and South Ossetia and all its
problems are related to Russia, the Georgian president, in fact,
attempted to involve the western community in Georgian-Russian
relations and to fully shade the position of the unrecognized
republics.
Such a policy was obviously able to aggravate Russian-Georgian
relations, at best, and to spoil Russia’s relations with the so-called
friends of Georgia, at worst. The worst case proved impracticable as
despite various contradictions, Russia tries to be in constructive
dialogue with almost all the international process participants
and to discuss with them problems that are much wider in scope than
Georgia’s interests. Saakashvili doggedly tried to escalate tensions
in the conflict zone and thereby to turn the attention of the world
community to his country’s problems, which, as I have already said,
he has initially ascribed to Russia’s influence.
He has succeeded in a sense, but the question is what to do next. It
turns out that very few people actually want to conflict with Russia…
GUM’s task was to pool efforts to create a ‘sanitary cordon’ against
Russia and, together with Azerbaijan, to consolidate to gain control
over the self-proclaimed republics. This maneuver was followed by
an adequate response – Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transdniestria
also consolidated their efforts, which complicated their individual
problems and questioned the very expediency of Georgia’s policy. It
is becoming clear that Saakashvili will actually have to fight for
restoring his country’s territorial integrity, but, this time, at
two rather than one fronts.
Meanwhile, he has an invariable alternative – to agree with Russia.
In the meantime, Saakashvili’s rating precipitously fell following the
internal political events like the mysterious death of prime minister
Zhvania and the shift of several parliamentary forces and the foreign
minister into the opposition. Georgia’s policy on Ajaria, who, in
fact, lost its autonomy after the expulsion of Abashidze, made it
even harder for Tbilisi to find acceptable solutions to the conflicts.
In his attempt to keep the situation under control, Saakashvili formed
a rigid intra-party hierarchy, nominated radical figures into military
offices and as a result got a warning from US Deputy Secretary of
State Dan Fried that he is going back to authoritarianism.
The illogicality of Georgia’s consistent efforts to exacerbate its
relations with Russia – its key economic partner – ended in quite
logical consequences. Russia consistently enhanced its presence in
Georgia’s energy sector, with its surgery strikes on the country’s
key export items resulting in Tbilisi’s absurd announcement about
secession from the CIS. In fact, for Georgia the CIS membership is of
much bigger economic importance than for any other member-state. The
CIS countries are Georgia’s biggest foreign trade partners, with Russia
being traditionally on top with 16%. Until recently, 70-80% of Georgian
wines and mineral waters have been exported to Russia. Some sources
say that because of the wine embargo alone Georgia loses $18-25mln a
week. Besides, the winemaking infrastructure is tightly connected to a
whole cascade of raw material industries and services: vine-growing,
the production and import of mineral fertilizers, packing, railroad
operations. The natural result of these tendencies and of almost
redoubled fuel export price was the rise in consumer prices – 5.8%
since early 2006 and 10% against a year before.
Thus, the real results of the Georgian policy of the last years are
as follows:
1. Setback in the Abkhazian and South Ossetian peace processes;
Shattered foreign trade balance;
1. Slumping rating of the authorities;
1. Real prospect for becoming the biggest vinegar supplier.
Moldavia
I can definitely say that in this new prospective export item Georgia
may face a tough rivalry from Moldova, but, if seriously, the economic
situation in Moldavia does not have even this prospect.
Experts say that the Moldavian economy is on the verge of a large-scale
financial-banking crisis: currency reserves are steadily decreasing,
the negative foreign trade balance is spasmodically growing (43%). In
January-April 2006 alone Moldova’s foreign trade turnover dropped by
10%. After losing positions on the alcohol and fruit markets in Russia,
Moldova is steadily turning into a pure importer, with no progress
shown in trade with immediate neighbors – Romania and Ukraine. The
Moldavian export to the CIS has decreased by 15%, to the EU by 4%.
President Voronin continues hoping for financial injections from
the West, perfectly realizing that they will not save the country’s
traditional industries unless they regain sales markets. Moldavia’s
strategy of the agri-industrial complex development till 2015 plans
5-7% annual growth in agricultural produce. Meanwhile, in 2005
this index was just 1% and in 2006 it may go even lower because of
stagnating winemaking.
The Ukrainian-Moldavian anti-Transdnestr campaign for introducing new
customs rules has also ended in economic damage for Chisinau. The cargo
turnover via the Ukrainian-Moldavian border has dropped from 4.5mln
tons in January-April 2005 to 3.1mln tons in January-April 2006. In the
first quarter of 2006, the total volume of Ukrainian-Moldavian mutual
supplies dropped by $4.8mln or 3%. Experts say that the Moldavian
government’s promise to ensure 9-10% inflation in 2006 is unreal, they
say that, in fact, inflation will be no less than 13%. In January-May
2006, inflation grew by 7.2%. Last months, food prices grew by 1.6%,
non-food prices by 1.4%, service tariffs by 0.3%. Meanwhile, the
heaviest impacts of the rise in the Russian gas tariff are yet to come.
In the political agenda the “achievements” of Moldova are not much
different from those of Georgia.
Objectively unable to play more or less significant role in GUAM,
Moldova is just watching the game with a hope that it will get
dividends just because it is in the project. Obviously, Moldova is
not able to make any economic or political contribution to the bloc’s
maneuvers, but it will certainly have to reckon with the consequences
of the coordinated policy of “the union of the unrecognized” under
the “Kosovo precedent” aegis. The rigid contraposition of the EU and
Russian interests and the wish to force Russia out of the Transdnestr
peace process has made the positions of the sides even tougher and
that of Moscow – maximally tough.
Ukraine
Ukraine is facing the most complicated political situation of all.
Besides being the key potential importer of the Georgian and Moldavian
vinegar, that country claims to become the most consistent executor
of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages.
Speaking seriously, this long campaign seems to have knocked Ukraine
out of the general logic of the international political process. What
is beginning to happen in Ukraine proves that the country has lost
control over the situation. The best example is the last incident
with American marines and engineers in the Crimea. The Americans
seemingly failed to notice they were treated as occupants just because
the authorities were so busy with fighting for portfolios that they
simply forgot they had come. One might as well speak about chaos in
parliament and government.
Having come into power amid democratic slogans, “the orange trio”
has now gone as far as to charge each other with betraying “the
ideas of Maidan.” By strictly counterpoising the planned accession
into NATO with the military-technical cooperation with Russia, the
Ukrainian politicians risk to bring to nothing the Ukrainian-Russian
defense cooperation. Russia is already saying it is ready to stop
military-technical cooperation. No doubt this will damage not only
the economy but also the defense potential of Ukraine and no need
proving that it will take the country years if not decades to repair
this damage.
Meanwhile, each day of de facto anarchy in Ukraine is making
things even worse and is bringing to the surface the apparent and
latent problems of the Ukrainian statehood. One such problem is
the country’s language division – hardly something coincidental or
inspired from outside. This factor was objective reality, and the
Ukrainian authorities should have accepted it, but the fact is that
it was just another opportunity for some political forces to reinforce
their own positions.
The long political uncertainty has slowed down the economic growth
set off by Leonid Kuchma. Despite its strong industrial and agrarian
potential, Ukraine has almost the lowest economic growth in Europe.
EBRD forecasts that this year, Ukraine will be the worst in economic
growth among 27 Central and Eastern European countries – only 1.2%
against twice as much last year. In 2005, the GDP growth fell by 3.6
times, the industrial output growth by 4 times as against January-June
2004.
Ukraine’s Clearing House says that in January-June 2006, the fixed
capital investment growth rate dropped by 4 times, with the share of
the state budget falling by as much. As of August 1 2005, the positive
foreign trade balance had plummeted by almost 21 times (!).
Ukraine has fallen back to the level of 2000. In January-July 2006,
the state budget got only 51.6% of the annual plan. Financiers say that
the political stagger of the Ukrainian establishment may shatter the
stability of the national currency. One more prerequisite for such
an outcome is rising fuel prices, growing inflation and augmenting
negative trade balance.
It should be noted that Ukraine’s advantage over Georgia and Moldova
is that if restoring foreign political stability it can relatively
compensate its economic losses by budgetary capital investments and
big foreign credits. Still, it is exactly political instability that
continues to be the biggest potential danger not only for Ukraine but
also for the whole GUM. We know that it pains them in Georgia to see
what is going on in Ukraine. We can understand them: being the engine
of the project, the Georgian leaders perfectly realize that their key
argument against Russia is exactly Ukraine. The first and foremost
trump of Ukraine is its role of a transit corridor between Russia
and Europe. Russia has covered this trump by a preventive measure –
it has begun to lay the Northern-European pipeline. In fact, this
project is a response to the Ukrainian elite’s vector contraposition
attempt coming from the Polish and Baltic “priorities.”
The results of the “orange” revolution are as follows:
1. Economic stagnation, growing consumer, fuel, and transport prices;
1. Growing public tension fueled by continuing chaos in the government
and vague and sometimes mutually contradicting state priorities;
Growing contradictions in the Crimea, globalization of this local
problem;
1. Weakening power vertical, lack of control over regions as a result
of impulsive staff policy;
1. Weakening sovereignty and, as a result, interference of external
forces in the political fate of the country;
1. Loss of organic place in Europe’s geo-political construction –
Ukraine has turned from the key link between the CIS and Europe into
a conflict buffer between Russia and Europe and risks to lose the
confidence of both Russia and Europe;
1. Big business is losing because of unwise privatization, some
politicians are openly revengeful and thereby pose threat to the
national security.
In conclusion, I can say that the present tension in the anti-Russian
“arc” was expected by many – and, probably, even by the leaders
of those countries. When you are between two poles you can hardly
expect to avoid discharge. Still, the “sanitary cordon” project is
not over – it is at its climax. And much will depend on what comes
next in Ukraine. The “happy end” of the “portfolio passion” drama
has been followed by a new situation. It is clear that the backstage
confrontation will continue to deepen and each of the big political
leaders will try to prove that his voice is decisive. With her bitter
experience of short-lived premiership, the future premier Timoshenko
may well try to reinforce her positions by, probably, undermining
the positions of the president. Still, the key task of those actors
is not to allow the split of the country – for, as it turns out, the
western script writers made a major mistake when projecting Ukraine’s
place and role – they miscalculated that this country cannot perform
the role of a mono-layer buffer. Roughly speaking, if the western
part of the country becomes a buffer between Europe and Russia,
the eastern part will fence off Russia from Europe and its buffer.
Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova are three CIS countries who have
undertaken confrontational, if not hostile, policy towards Russia.
They are openly torpedoing integration initiatives in the post-Soviet
area, particularly, by tearing the CIS from inside by means of GUAM and
by belittling the potential significance of EurAsEC. This is obviously
bad, not only for Russia but also for the other CIS countries. For
example, Georgia’s secession from the CIS cannot but cause harm to
Armenia, though, unlike Georgia, Armenia has managed to somewhat
diversify its foreign policy and has given the EU an even bigger
share in its export-import operations than to Russia.
In its turn, Russia, whose motto is “we will hold dialogue only
with those who are ready for one,” has undertaken a number of
counter-measures. I can’t say that all of them are correct or
justified, on the contrary, many of them make things even worse.
Obviously, Russia is taking up a new attitude – “our losses are
becoming yours.”

ILHAM ALIYEV LOST TRUST IN PEACE TALKS AND MEDIATORS ON NAGORNO KARABAKH
Regnum, Russia
June 24 2006
“We have been loyal to negotiation process for more than 10 years,
which is the evidence of our constructiveness,” Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev said on June 23 in Baku.
Ilham Aliyev reminded that UNO has issued four resolutions on
Nagorno Karabakh, pointing out that Azerbaijani land should be
liberated without any conditions. Additionally, there are decisions
of other international organizations such as the Council of Europe,
Organization of the Islamic Conference, GUAM, etc. Nevertheless,
according to the head of state, Armenia does not fulfill them.
“We do not hope any longer for international regulation mechanisms.
We can not bear with this situation. We well never accept loosing of
land. We will never allow separating Nagorno Karabakh from Azerbaijan;
it is not subject for talks. We will only negotiate of the restoration
of Azerbaijani territorial integrity and guaranteeing security for
all peoples living in the region. No agreements are possible outside
these limits,” the president stressed.
“How long will we participate in the talks? How long will we wait?
Our patience is limited. Today, Azerbaijan is a quickly developing
country. Armenia is not able to compete with us from neither
economic, nor political, nor military point of view. Armenians
should imagine where will be Azerbaijan and where will be Armenia
in one, in three, and in five years. Armenia does not have any
resources for development. They are excluded from all international
regional projects. Their abilities for economic development are very
restricted. About half of their population left the country.
According to our information, they are experiencing difficulties
even guarding the border due to the lack of servicemen,” Ilham Aliyev
asserted.
According to Aliyev, Azerbaijan lives in the state of war; in which
case much attention should be paid to army development. “Our military
expenditures have increased four times for the last three years. They
totaled $135mln in 2003 and $700mln – in 2006. We are going to further
increase them,” Ilham Aliyev said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SYSTEM’S GOT IT DOWN
Edmonton Journal, Canada
June 24 2006
With: Hatebreed
When: Sunday, 7 p.m.
Where: Rexall Place
Tickets: $39.75 to $55.75 (plus service charges) at Ticketmaster
– – –
Band hasn’t let success overshadow personal pursuits — like poker
and brokering an apology for a century-old wrong
EDMONTON – Photos rarely capture the true essence of a band, but
this portrait of System of a Down comes close to representing the
four faces of the Armenian-American metal acrobats.
Goofy. Devilish. Aloof. Brooding.
There’s vocalist Serj Tankian, the curly-haired Rasputin figure with
a silly grin.
His lyrics on System’s last two albums, Mezmerize and Hypnotize,
are just as loopy. Interspersed with biting condemnations of war,
politics and Hollywood are unexpected bursts of nonsense: “Banana
banana banana terra cotta!” he sings on Vicinity of Obscenity.
Then, there’s guitarist Daron Malakian, the wide-eyed scamp who looks
like he’s trying to conjure up a halo over his head.
His bratty vocals on Lost In Hollywood and B.Y.O.B. provide a
counterpoint to Tankian’s deeper, richer tones.
There’s bassist Shavo Odadjian, who looks more interested in what’s
beyond the camera’s reach.
Similarly, you won’t find any of System’s members hamming it up for the
paparazzi, hanging out with the likes of Paris Hilton or Tara Reid in
the pages of Us or In Touch. Instead, the musicians would rather remain
distant from the Hollywood machine — or talk about issues that don’t
get a lot of media exposure, such as the Armenian genocide of 1915.
Finally, there’s drummer John Dolmayan, who admits he never smiles in
snapshots or on stage. His menacing look mirrors the group’s heavier,
darker side. It also comes in handy when he visits his favourite Las
Vegas casinos.
What this photo doesn’t reveal is Dolmayan’s passion for poker. He
even lives in Sin City, making him the only band member who doesn’t
reside in the Los Angeles area.
“I don’t know if I’m good … yet,” he says via cellphone, on his
way to a poker game.
“Let’s just say that I’ve only been playing for 10 years. I was
playing mostly home games and now I’m playing more at the casinos
so I’m getting better, learning a lot more. You don’t learn sh–
at the home games because everyone sucks just like you.
“For me, it’s relaxing, it takes my mind off everyday life. I do it
occasionally, but I play to win. I look at it as a game of chess. I’m
pretty much even — I haven’t had great successes but I haven’t had
great failures either. I’ve got a great poker face.”
True, but even Dolmayan wasn’t willing to bet System could release
two chart-topping metal masterpieces in less than a year — 2005’s
Mezmerize and Hypnotize. Nor did he think he’d ever end up hobnobbing
with U.S. politicians. But earlier this year, Dolmayan and Tankian
flew to Washington, D.C., to talk to U.S. senators and congressmen
about an issue close to their hearts.
In 1915, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were evacuated and later
killed by the Ottoman Empire, now known as Turkey.
Dolmayan thinks it’s about time for an official apology and wants
the U.S. to lean on the Turkish government.
“We had families who were extinguished in this genocide and the
people who perpetrated it have never been brought to justice,” he
says. “That’s wrong. I can’t live a happy life without making an
effort to make that right. We don’t necessarily blame the Turkish
people because they’re taught from birth it didn’t happen. And during
the genocide, a lot of Turkish people helped Armenians at great risk
to themselves. We were neighbours; we helped each other. Our ancestors
were really close.”
Dolmayan believes his words were taken seriously by politicians,
but he doesn’t think it will lead to an instant solution.
“All efforts lead to something,” he says. “It might not be this year,
it might not be because of our trip, but if you’re going to run a
marathon, you have to take the first step. … We’re going to continue
to fight for it. It should be important to other people, too. As you
can see, genocides are still being committed. If we don’t care what
happened in the past, why should we care what’s happening now?”
By year’s end, Dolmayan will have a lot more time to lobby
politicians. After 11 years and five albums, the band members want
to take a bit of a breather and work on other projects.
Tankian will be busy with his label, Serjical Strike Records.
Odadjian will channel his inner hip-hop homie while recording with
members of Wu-Tang Clan. Malakian plans to start another group,
Scars on Broadway.
Dolmayan says he’ll take part in some of these extra-curricural
recordings. “I’ll be more than happy to help them out.” You’ll also
find the drummer playing poker — but don’t expect him to turn up
on one of those celebrity TV games. “Definitely not interested,”
he says. “They’re godawful.”
He’ll also be hanging out in his warehouse, where he keeps his
collection of old-school arcade games — including Tempest, Donkey
Kong and Tron — and four million comic books. His favourite title?
Fantastic Four. “It’s a great hobby,” he says. “It fulfils my nerd
credentials.”
His nerdiness was apparent as a kid.
“I treated (comics) pretty seriously right away,” he says.
“Being a drummer, I’m kind of anal — it’s the truth; most drummers
are. I wanted to take care of them, organize them; I was pretty
meticulous. So I didn’t just buy them and throw them away. They were
a great introduction to reading novels. I think they’re very healthy
for kids — they expand your mind, your imagination, your reading.
It’s a great way to achieve learning for kids who get sick of some
of the more boring stuff they teach you in school. Which I hated.”
Comics are also a great way to achieve your dreams. During System’s
hiatus, Dolmayan also plans to start up an Internet company based
on comics. He doesn’t want to reveal much, but he says it will be up
and running within the next 18 months.
“Believe me, you’ll find out about it,” he says.
You can almost hear him smiling. Almost.
[email protected]
Read Sandra’s blog at
SYSTEM SNAPSHOT
– Formed: In 1995 in Los Angeles.
– Members: Serj Tankian (vocals/guitar), Daron Malakian
(guitar/vocals), Shavo Odadjian (bass), John Dolmayan (drums).
– Heritage: All four are Armenian. Dolmayan was born in Lebanon,
then moved to Montreal, where he demolished his first drum set at
the age of seven. After a few years, his family headed to Los Angeles.
– Discography: System of a Down (1998), Toxicity (2001), Steal This
Album! (2002), Mezmerize (2005), Hypnotize (2005).
– Quote: “A lot of people look at System and see us as very serious
and political or however they want to look at us,” says Dolmayan. “We
are. We have that side, but each of us have another side to us. We
enjoy being fans of other things and being kids in a lot of ways.
“Believe me, if you want to get into other aspects of my life, I’m
very serious about bringing to light the Armenian genocide issue.
There’s a lot of things wrong with the planet that I’d like to see
righted. But you can’t be that all the time, otherwise it just gets
boring. I like to enjoy things, too, I don’t want to sit in my room
and sulk all day.”

WRITE ABOUT CYPRUS AND A GREEK RESPONDS
By Nevval Sevindi
Zaman Online, Turkey
June 24 2006
When I wrote my latest article, “Reality Behind Greek Cypriot
Mischief.” There was no round of applause for me as a hero, nor did
letters pour in from patriotic souls.
No sooner was the English translation of the column was placed on
the web’ an avalanche of derogatory letters from the Greeks began to
pour in. “When will you talk about Turkish mischief?” some said, while
others called me a nationalist and a provocateur. How ironic it is that
these two traits are loved by our academicians and columnists! I was,
frankly speaking, moved by the “politeness” of the people who referred
to my column as “sounds of dog barking,” and others who offered the
advice: “Drinking and writing do not mix, you drunken writer.” I have
witnessed how the Greeks use the Armenian allegations of genocide as
weapon against Turkey. They attribute Turkey’s independence success
to assistance from Western countries rather than to the leadership
of Ataturk. Greeks must be suffering from amnesia, to not remember
that it was the Western countries that invaded Anatolia.
They are too vein to admit plain truths. I advise those who insistently
call Turks “nationalists,” to investigate the evidence of Greek and
Armenian nationalism.
One Greek claims, “Show me a country that borders Turkey, and is
not at war with Turks.” He is convinced that we are embroiled in
conflict with the Greeks, Bulgarians, Russians and Iranians. Our
refusal to take sides with the US, our 40-year allies, in the Iraq
war is ignored. As far as I understand, the Greeks, who referred to
the Ottoman state as “a bunch of murderers,” never think of critiquing
themselves, whereas, Westerners always tell us to face “the facts” in
the Armenian and Kurdish issues. There are those who claim we Turks
set Izmir on fire. Let’s read what American Donald Whitthal and the
commander of USS Arizona say on this subject, “From where I stood —
between customs building and Palace Hotel — I witnessed the killings
of thirty people with their hands handcuffed and on their heads. This
atrocity was the work of Greek soldiers…” They add, as soon as
Greek soldiers landed, they killed the civilians they came across. The
commander relating how civilians were stabbed with bayonets, states,
“Most of the cruelty took place while Turks were under arrest.”
A British officer notes in his report, “Greeks plundered Turkish
villages, killing villagers trying to escape.” The Allied Investigation
Commission states that Greek soldiers and civilians alike caused
chaos in the city, committing assaults, murder and robbery. The
Greeks attacked the Ottoman state without any legal grounds and
were defeated. Why are they angry? The Greek cruelty was not only to
Muslims but also to the Jewish population of Izmir. Since Jews were
seen as Turkish allies, many of them were killed or exiled while hatred
was fanned by anti-Semitic prejudices. It is an historical fact that
the Greeks at times raided Jewish camps searching for “child-eating”
Jews. Thanks to the British and other western allies, we have records
of these bloody events. The principal reason for the Cyprus conflict
is blunder committed by the European Union by admitting Greek Cyprus
to the union at the expense of its own laws. Without touching this
main reason, the EU is dancing syrtaki with the Greeks and wants us to
dance with them If the West so respects its laws, then why should it
grant membership to a ‘country’ beset with border conflicts? Because
it will serve to block Turkey’s entry to the union. Now, the EU is
beating around the bush.
It cannot steer clear to keep a straight path. An expert on hypocrisy
and double standards, the West is playing the three monkeys and not
keeping its promises.
Those who read-only my column superficially may conclude that Greeks
are our enemies, and that Turkey should not join the EU. These are
emotional reactions. The fact is that we are not enemies of anyone and
have an optimistic view of things, but we pay a heavy price for our
good intentions. Secondly, joining EU is our right, thus we should do
so. It is now the Union’s move, after long years of our sacrifice to
meet the criteria put to us, including customs agreement. However, if.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PERSPECTIVE: WHAT DRIVES PEOPLE TO COMMIT GENOCIDE?
by George Kassimeris
Birmingham Post, UK
June 24, 2006, Saturday
First Edition
The torture and murder of two marines in Iraq this week has
highlighted the depths to which warring factions can plummet. But
George Kassimeris, who has just written a new book on the subject,
believes that warfare and barbarity will always go hand in hand
“What does the earth look like in the places where people commit
atrocities?” wondered American writer Robert Kaplan while researching
his book on the Balkans and its people.
“Is there a bad smell”, he asked, “a genius loci, something about
the landscape that might incriminate?”
It is probably tempting to think that yes, in places whose names
have become synonymous with the atrocities of our times and where
hundreds of thousands have lost their lives, a permanent ghastly
darkness coupled with a dull smell of damp and rot does exist.
This is not true, of course. Take Rwanda, for example.
Rwanda is universally described as spectacular to behold. A beautiful
country full of eucalyptus trees and brilliant green tea plantations
but also a country which went through the horrific trauma of neighbour
killing neighbour.
All told, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in fewer than a
hundred days.
What happened in Rwanda in 1994 was a shameful passage in 20th
century history but it was not an isolated incident of aberrant
behaviour. Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, East Timor, Darfur, Kenya,
Algeria, Cambodia, Chechnya – the list could go on and on – have all
witnessed indiscriminate waves of killing of the most horrifying kind.
What drives ordinary people to hatred, genocide, inhumanity and evil?
What turns friends and neighbours against each other with such
savagery? What turns fresh-faced boys into killers of people who have
done them no harm? Where does such barbarity come from?
The characteristic act of men at war is not killing: it is killing by
committing shocking and unspeakable atrocities, when circumstances
permit. If there were any doubts about man’s capacity for savagery
and inhumanity to man in times of war, the 20th century’s excessive
violence, barbarism and genocide put them to rest.
>>From the bloodshed of the Western Front to the massacres of the
Armenians, from Stalin’s camps to the rape of Nanjing, from the
butchery of Bosnia to the slow motion genocide of Darfur, men and
women of all creeds and colours exhibited a staggering appetite for
death and destruction. That said, barbarity in warfare is hardly an
exclusively 20th-century phenomenon.
True, the last century will go down in history as one of the most
gruesome and murderous centuries but the exercise of indiscriminate
terror, ethnic cleansing, genocide and rape as war-making tools has
been used for millennia.
The romance of warfare, however, should never be underestimated.
“Three thousand years”, the classicist Bernard Knox once commented,
“have not changed the human condition: we are still lovers of the
will to violence.” Why is war so seductive?
One of the many reasons why Apocalypse Now is remembered when dozen
other war movies, from The Boys in Company C to Go Tell the Spartans,
are pretty much forgotten is that it embraces the full emotional range
of the phenomenon and dares to admit something that less ambiguous
works cannot allow themselves to countenance: seen from a certain
angle, war can be intoxicating and exciting.
Colonel Kilgore’s dawn helicopter raid and his notorious line about
remembering the smell of napalm – “smelled like Victory” -says a
great deal more about the emotional texture of war and the condition
of men in war than the mesmeric appeal of technologies of killing.
How people explain and justify war does not necessarily account for
why they wage it.
Despite the uncertainty, the fear of death and the catastrophe of
defeat, warfare has always attracted people. No matter how many times
the nature of the argument about the use and value of warfare has
changed over the centuries war fascinates men more than it repels them.
When Alexander the Great took a copy of the Iliad with him on campaign,
it was not because it served as a cautionary reminder of the bitterness
and folly of war. Homer describes the grief and lamentation of mothers
and fathers, comrades and lovers’ but the Iliad as a whole celebrates
heroism rather than horror and violence.
But the question that needs to be asked is this: can warfare be
anything else than barbaric? Much historical evidence shows that there
is not much in recent history to prove that it can. The kind of dark
barbarity that defined much of the world before the creation of the
nation-state, has to a large degree characterised the world that
came after.
The remarkable thing, however, is that it was only towards the end of
the 20th century that people in the West began to understand a basic
fact that Sri Lankans, Haitians, Liberians, Afghans, Chechnyans,
Cambodians, Angolans and many others have long known all too well:
that warfare prosecuted according to recognised laws of war has been
the exception not the rule.
For centuries we have debated the morality of going to war and the
manner in which it is fought, but international conventions are not
sufficient in themselves to make warriors adhere to the rules.
People have continued to commit war atrocities, refusing to distinguish
between combatants and noncombatants, legitimate and illegitimate
targets and civilised and barbarous treatment of prisoners and of
the wounded.
In the light of this it is not difficult to explain why the ratio of
military to civilian casualties since the First World War has risen
so dramatically that civilian casualties now constitute the majority –
an astonishing and depressing 90 percent – of those killed, mutilated,
raped and uprooted even when they presented no conceivable threat to
the military adversaries.
What is even more depressing is the fact that a large number of them
are children.
So is it pointless to imagine a world where people are not hounded
from their homes, starved to the death, tortured or massacred?
A world where dignity prevails among warriors who choose to fight each
other? What human history has taught us and continues to teach us is
that for as long as there is war and human conflict, there will always
be people – psychopaths and conformists, fanatics and opportunists,
adventurers and moral cowards – willing to commit atrocities in
exchange for a little power and privilege.
And once you choose to look at the violence in this way, and notice
that so much of it occurs in the familiar environment of everyday life,
it no longer seems mindless, chaotic or medieval.
There is a level on which violence has no reason or purpose –
it exists to gratify itself. Nothing illustrates that point better
than the atrocities taking place in Iraq from both the Americans and
the insurgents.
The killings of innocent Iraqis in Haditha by American soldiers and
the tortured bodies of US marines found dumped near Baghdad only
few days ago are two of the most recent but many examples which tell
us exactly the same things the Abu Ghraib photographs told us: that
across the bleak landscape of the 21st century, in an age when sadism
and torture have become themselves addictive forms of entertainment,
it will take a long, long time before somebody comes up with a coherent
plan for dealing with human nastiness.
George Kassimeris is a Senior Research Fellow in Conflict Studies at
Wolverhampton University. His book The Barbarisation of Warfare has
just been published by Hurst.
GRAPHIC: Skulls lie on display at the Ntarama Genocide Memorial in
Rwanda. The memorial occupies a former Catholic Church where about
5,500 people died during the April 1994 genocide after seeking refuge
in the church’ The front cover of the book by George Kassimeris -The
Barbarisation of Warfare.

EX-SOVIET LEADERS AIM FOR EURASIA CUSTOMS UNION
Agence France Presse — English
June 23, 2006 Friday 8:56 PM GMT
Ex-Soviet leaders meeting in the Belarus capital on Friday discussed
setting up a vast customs union between the frontiers of Europe and
Asia by 2007.
“We have to decide on… the creation of a full customs union,”
Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko said at the start of the
meetings held in the country’s new grandiose national library.
Lukashenko was hosting two Moscow-led groupings of former Soviet
republics — the Eurasian Economic Community (EEC) and the Collective
Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO).
“By the end of this year, we will prepare all the legal bases for a
customs union,” Uzbek President Islam Karimov said at a news conference
after the meetings.
Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev said that “the draft laws
are ready,” adding that some 80 percent of tariffs among EEC member
states have already been agreed.
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan are all members
of the EEC, which was set up in 1999. Uzbekistan is in the process
of joining.
Grigory Rapota, the EEC’s secretary-general, said a customs union
would boost overland rail trade between South-East Asia and Europe,
generating economic gains for transit countries.
The EEC, he said, was planning direct container transport between
the Chinese city of Urumqi and the Belarussian city of Brest —
on the border with Poland.
The Eurasia Development Bank — a project funded by Russia and
Kazakhstan with start-up capital of 1.5 billion dollars — would
also help boost economic links when it starts work later this month,
he added.
But talks on the customs union have snagged over the question of
joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Kyrgyzstan is already a
member, while Russia and Kazakhstan are both candidates for accession
to the global trade body.
“It’s difficult. Important economic interests for each country are
involved,” Rapota said, highlighting difficulties on agreeing common
customs laws, tariffs and rules on investment.
In a final statement after the EEC meeting, heads of state agreed
to “guarantee the interests of member states acceding to the WTO
(World Trade Organisation), taking into account the creation of a
customs union.”
Also Friday, members of the CSTO met for talks aimed at boosting
the group’s international profile but failed to agree on setting up
measures for mutual defence.
“We’re sorry we didn’t manage to do this today but the talks will
continue,” Armenian President Robert Kocharyan said at the news
conference following the meeting.
A draft final statement had called for “provision of emergency
military-technical assistance to CSTO member states where there
is a security threat or against whom an act of aggression has been
committed.”
The CSTO, set up in 1992 to focus on anti-terrorism and
counternarcotics programmes, is made up of Armenia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
Uzbekistan was accepted as a full member at the meeting on Friday.
The group’s secretary general, Nikolai Bordyuzha, called in an
interview with the Belarussian Military newspaper for the CSTO to
organise “military, peacekeeping and collective reaction forces for
emergency situations.”
Bordyuzha also said the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
had failed to respond to his offer for cooperation from the grouping
of ex-Soviet states.
“It doesn’t bother us. The CSTO is quite a developed organisation
with significant contacts. Our priority, I note, is the UN, not NATO,”
Bordyuzha said.
As an example of a successful CSTO project, Bordyuzha referred to
an anti-drugs initiative called “Channel,” set up in 2004 and now
including countries such as China, India, Pakistan and the United
States.

ROBERT GUEDIGUIAN SUR LA TERRE ARMENIENNE
La Croix , France
24 juin 2006
Pour son nouveau long metrage, Robert Guediguian quitte les docks
de Marseille. Dans Le Voyage en Armenie, le cineaste a choisi de
se tourner vers l’Armenie de ses origines. L’idee lui a ete offerte
par sa femme, l’actrice Ariane Ascaride, qui a imagine une histoire
autour d’un père brouille avec sa fille (elle tient d’ailleurs ce
rôle). Se sachant gravement malade, ce dernier souhaite revenir sur
la terre de ses ancetres et en leguer quelque chose a sa fille. Le
realisateur a saisi l’occasion, sans doute influence par un recent
sejour en Armenie, lors d’une retrospective de ses films. La-bas, les
Armeniens lui avaient reclame une oeuvre sur leur pays, signifiant leur
“besoin d’etre visible, d’exister”.
–Boundary_(ID_iOE8eU5ZC5nTgnVsR 7gwrw)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

LES NEGOCIATIONS ENTRE L’UNION EUROPEENNE ET LA TURQUIE SONT-ELLES UN JEU DE DUPES ?
L’analyse d’Alexandrine Bouilhet
Le Figaro, France
24 juin 2006
Les negociations entre l’Union europeenne et la Turquie ont franchi une
etape decisive, la semaine dernière, a Luxembourg. Les deux parties
contractantes ont clos le premier chapitre – consacre a la science
et a la recherche – des negociations d’adhesion.
Techniquement, le pas est insignifiant. Ce domaine comporte très
peu d'”acquis communautaire”, c’est-a-dire peu de lois europeennes
a transposer dans le droit national turc.
La Turquie participe deja aux programmes scientifiques communs, comme
Euratom ou Eureka ; elle peut deja utiliser les fonds de Bruxelles
alloues a ces projets. Son merite en la matière est donc reduit.
“C’est comme si on faisait passer un examen d’anglais a quelqu’un
de parfaitement bilingue”, resume-t-on a Bruxelles. Lors du Conseil
europeen, Jacques Chirac a minimise l’evenement. “On a ouvert un
chapitre, d’accord, mais les negociations pourront toujours etre
remises en question si la Turquie ne remplit pas ses obligations…”,
a-t-il commente. N’en deplaise aux turco-sceptiques, la Turquie
a marque un point important sur le plan legal et politique. L’UE
est avant tout une communaute de droit. Après neuf mois passes dans
l’antichambre, la Turquie peut se targuer d’etre entree dans le vif du
sujet communautaire. A Luxembourg, elle a mis ses pions sur la première
case du vaste jeu de l’oie europeen, qui compte 35 cases ou chapitres,
correspondant aux 80 000 pages de legislation. A la fin du jeu, quand
toutes les cases sont remplies, le pays candidat entre, en principe,
dans l’UE. Pour la Turquie, qui n’a jamais ete consideree comme un
candidat comme un autre, s’agit-il de veritables negociations ou d’un
jeu de dupes ? A Bruxelles comme a Ankara, rares sont ceux qui ne se
posent pas la question, au moins en silence.
D’autant que le fin mot de l’adhesion turque reviendra, on le
sait, aux Francais, appeles a approuver, par referendum, tous les
futurs elargissements de l’Union, a l’exception de la Bulgarie,
de la Roumanie et de la Croatie. Le premier test pour la Turquie,
comme pour l’Europe, sur le serieux des negociations, interviendra
a l’automne quand seront examines les chapitres “marche interieur”
ou “transports”, qui exigent la libre circulation des biens et des
personnes. Si Ankara refuse toujours d’ouvrir ses ports aux bateaux
greco-chypriotes, l’UE va-t-elle interrompre d’un coup ses pourparlers
avec la Turquie ? C’est un risque que le premier ministre, Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, semble pret a prendre, a en croire ses dernières declarations
a Istanbul. Lorsqu’ils ont ouvert les negociations d’adhesion avec
Ankara le 3 octobre 2005, les Vingt-Cinq ont exige une normalisation
des relations turco-chypriotes avant la fin de l’annee 2006. Si
le blocage persiste, le Conseil europeen de decembre se saisira du
dossier. La question chypriote, plus que la reconnaissance du genocide
armenien, pèse lourdement sur la candidature de la Turquie. En cas,
probable, de non-reconnaissance de Chypre dans les six prochains mois,
Bruxelles se prepare a interrompre les negociations au moins sur les
chapitres concernes : marche interieur, douanes, transports. L’examen
des autres chapitres continueraient, laissant la porte ouverte a
la Turquie.
“Techniquement, nous nous arrangerons pour que le train soit toujours
sur les rails, mais politiquement ces negociations deviendront de
plus en plus difficiles a vendre a l’opinion”, pronostique un expert
bruxellois. Avec son droit de veto, Chypre peut tout faire derailler.
Arbitre des negociations, la Commission est le plus fidèle allie de la
Turquie. “Parfois, elle en rajoute meme un peu trop !” plaisante un
diplomate italien. A Bruxelles, le “desk” Turquie est pilote par un
Suedois, turco-enthousiaste, lui-meme chapeaute par un Britannique,
Michael Leah, pour qui l’elargissement reste la meilleure et la plus
moderne des politiques de l’Union, garante de paix et de prosperite
sur le continent. Parmi les Vingt-Cinq, la Turquie peut compter sur
l’appui de nombreux pays et pas des moindres : la Grande-Bretagne,
la Suède, la Finlande, la Belgique, l’Italie et tous les nouveaux
Etats membres. Meme si elle se doit de rester neutre, la presidence
finlandaise de l’Union, qui commence le 1 er juillet, devrait tout
faire pour eviter la rupture sur la question chypriote. Et la Turquie,
membre eminent de l’Otan, peut toujours s’appuyer sur Washington,
comme elle l’a fait le 3 octobre 2005. Face a ce bloc solide, le
camp “anti-Turquie” est plus faible et plus fluctuant. Bruxelles y
range l’Autriche, les Pays-Bas, le Danemark, Chypre et la France de
l’après-29 mai. Pourtant, la ligne francaise reste ambiguë, partagee
entre l’Elysee, favorable a l’entree de la Turquie pour des raisons
strategiques, et le Quai d’Orsay, souvent plus sceptique. Pour Jacques
Chirac, la Turquie doit entrer dans l’Europe pour que celle-ci ne
reste pas un “club chretien”. Pour nombre de diplomates francais au
contraire, l’adhesion de la Turquie risque de “denaturer” le projet
europeen. Cette attitude double rend la position francaise souvent
illisible par l’opinion, sauf pour les experts du dossier qui ont
appris a decrypter le jeu de Paris. “En coulisse, les diplomates
francais sont les plus pinailleurs, avec les Chypriotes, constate un
negociateur. Ils font monter la pression jusqu’au bout, mais dès qu’on
frôle la rupture, ils se rangent en faveur d’Ankara. Du coup, Chypre se
retrouve isolee, seule contre tous, et elle doit ceder.” Dans le jeu
diplomatique europeen, la France est moins decisive que l’Allemagne,
qui a toujours vote en faveur de la Turquie. “En Allemagne, la
Turquie est un dossier de politique interieure plus que de politique
etrangère”, note un diplomate, en faisant allusion aux 2,7 millions
de Turcs qui vivent en Allemagne, dont 550 000 avec le droit de
vote. En France, la Turquie restera un dossier de politique etrangère,
jusqu’a ce qu’elle entre dans le champ du referendum, attendu dans
dix ans au minimum, c’est-a-dire a la fin du jeu de l’oie europeen.
–Boundary_(ID_YQkut46D/NGmFlOU7NQTrQ)- –

L’HISTORIEN RENE REMOND CRAINT POUR LA LIBERTE DE LA RECHERCHE
Le Temps, Suisse
23 juin 2006
L’histoire au piège de la loi
Tout inscrire dans la loi: telle semble etre le peche mignon des
deputes francais. Une tendance propre a une nation continentale,
comme l’a souvent souligne un Michel Rocard, qui l’oppose au goût
du contrat propre a l’Angleterre, nation maritime. Or cette manie
legislative vient de marquer quelques rates, dès lors que le parlement
francais, en quelques annees, a vote plusieurs lois “memorielles”,
qui soulèvent la colère des historiens tout en contentant telle ou
telle communaute qui se regarde comme victime.
Loi Gayssot sanctionnant la contestation de la Shoah, soeur jumelle de
la loi relative au genocide armenien, loi Taubira assimilant traite
negrière au genocide, article conteste sur les effets benefiques de
la colonisation.
C’est sur cet etrange edifice, transformant l’historiographie en
delit potentiel, que revient l’excellent historien qu’est Rene
Remond. Repondant aux questions de Francois Azouvi, l’auteur des
Droites en France critique vertement cette manie legislative. Car elle
a conduit un groupe d’Antillais a deposer plainte, pour contestation de
genocide, contre un historien, Petre-Grenouilleau, dont la thèse a ete
saluee pour l’evaluation, approfondie et nuancee, de la traite negrière
qu’elle presente. Du coup, un collectif d’historiens, entraîne par Rene
Remond, a demande le retrait de l’ensemble de ces lois memorielles.
L’auteur ne se contente pas de souligner que ces lois sont de nature a
paralyser la recherche en histoire, toujours sujette a revision et au
doute. Si la Shoah, relève-t-il, ne prete plus a contestation, sinon de
la part d’hommes dont on doit interroger les motivations – Rassinier,
Faurisson, Le Pen, Gollnish… – un thème tel que l’affaire armenienne
ou la traite des esclaves n’interdit pas le questionnement. Car la
recherche de la verite est en jeu ici. Et si l’on retirait les lois
memorielles – entreprise au reste delicate – le dispositif legislatif
ordinaire suffirait, selon lui, a sanctionner l’insulte raciale.
L’essai ne s’arrete pas la. Remond repond avec subtilite et
intelligence a ceux qui reprochent aux historiens de pretendre au
monopole du traitement de l’histoire. Belle occasion de s’expliquer:
c’est une discipline ouverte, note-t-il, a tous ceux qui, non
professionnels, s’astreignent a la rigueur de la methode. Une
discipline qui demande de la sensibilite. Remond met un accent
particulier sur les intentions des acteurs de l’histoire et ne refuse
pas le jugement moral de l’historien, dans des conditions precises.
Dans un très beau chapitre sur le thème memoire/histoire, où il
se demarque en passant de Ricoeur – “la memoire est spontanee et
s’impose comme une evidence; l’histoire est une construction qui
procède d’un travail methodique” – Rene Remond evoque de manière
nuancee le “devoir de memoire”, et s’arrete a l’attachement, fort,
des Francais, a leur patrimoine. Signe, selon lui, d’un besoin de
se raccrocher au passe au moment meme où les mutations rapides et
profondes des modes d’existence genèrent, en nous, de l’angoisse.
Quand l’Etat se mele de l’histoire, Rene Remond, Stock, 107 p.
–Boundary_(ID_pN9vOCZgcTRquI8mMkpPWw)–

NEW DANISH DOCUMENTS ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
Nouvelles d’Armenie, France
3446
June 25 2006
Documents From The Danish National Archivies
Distributed with permission of the principal researcher, Matthias
Bjørnlund
========================== ==================================
DOCUMENT 1
1915-07-03-DK-001
The minister in Constantinople (Carl Ellis Wandel) to the foreign
minister (Erik Scavenius)
Source : Danish National Archives, Foreign Office, Group Cases
1909-1945. Dept. 139, Gr. D, No. 1, “Turkey – Inner Relations”.
Package 1, to Dec. 31, 1916
No. LXX [70]
Constantinople, July 3, 1915.
Confidential.
Mr. Foreign Minister,
In my earlier reports I have already several times had the opportunity
to mention the hatred that the Young Turk government has been showing
with less and less ambiguity against the aliens in Turkey since
the beginning of the war and the abrogation of the capitulations,
and particularly against the Christians.
In spite of the repeated promises that the Grand Vizier has given
to the Apostolic delegate [Monseigneur Angelo Marie Dolci] and to
the mission chiefs, many of the monasteries and other religious
institutions that have been seized have not yet been reopened, and
they are still being treated with the utmost arbitrariness, often
under the pretext of military necessity.
The Catholic church in Bebek by the Bosporus has even been placed
at the disposal of the local Muslims, who have converted it into
a mosque ; and property belonging to the Holy See in Kadikeui,
near Constantinople, has been taken over in order to establish a
Muslim school.
All of these violations, though, amount to nothing compared to a
very vital step, that I have learned today has been taken by the
government to remove the protected status which the Catholics have
enjoyed in Turkey from old times.
The government has established a non-clerical council, made up of 12
Catholic Ottoman subjects – naturally chosen among followers of the
government – who must choose a chairman among themselves.
This council is supposed to administer the Catholic church in Turkey
(i.e., the Latin, not the Greek, Armenian, etc.), and will thus become
some sort of a new Patriarchate.
This way, the representative of the Papal delegate and of the
countries that have Catholic interests in Turkey will be robbed of any
opportunity of attending to such interests and that all monasteries and
churches, and everything that the Catholic church owns in this country,
will be administrated by this new council and seized by the Caliphate.
Not surprisingly, the Papal delegate has refused to receive the 12
newly appointed gentlemen in corpore.
In Catholic circles, there had been hope that under these circumstances
the German ambassador, who represents so many millions of Catholics,
and the representative of the “Apostolic king” [i.e., the Austrian
ambassador Johann Pallavicini] would have a moderating influence on
the Young Turk government, but this seems not to be the case.
The German ambassador says that it must be due to a misunderstanding
if one thinks that Germany or any other power has any influence
here, because the Turkish government disregards the daily efforts
he makes to direct its attention to the many unwise acts by which it
makes itself still more hated, and the Austrian-Hungarian ambassador
expresses himself in a similar way, in that he, among other things,
complains about the arrogant way the Turks try to give the impression
that the advancement of the Austrian armed forces first and foremost
is caused by the Turkish victories against the allied forces at the
Dardanelles and elsewhere.
With the highest esteem I remain, Mr. Minister, yours faithfully
[Wandel]
—————————- ————————————————– —
DOCUMENT 2
1915-09-04-DK-001
The minister in Constantinople (Carl Ellis Wandel) to the foreign
minister (Erik Scavenius)
Source : Danish National Archives, Foreign Office, Group Cases
1909-1945. Dept. 139, Gr. D, No. 1, “Turkey – Inner Relations”.
Package 1, to Dec. 31, 1916
No. CXIII [113]
Constantinople, September 4, 1915.
Confidential.
Mr. Foreign Minister,
In continuation of my most respectful reports No. LXXVIII [78] of
July 22, No. LXXXVII [87] of July 31, and No. IC [99] of August 18,
I have the honor of reporting that the persecutions of the Armenians
are continuing with great intensity, in spite of the promises made
by the government here, and of which I have already reported.
At the reception Monday the 16th of August, the German ambassador
once again brought up these persecutions with the Grand Vizier,
and asked him to induce his government to cease, – especially when
it comes to the Armenian Catholics who have never participated in
revolutions or interfered with politics and still are subjected to
the most persistent persecutions.
Even the Gregorian Armenians, who have distanced themselves from
all nationalist ideas to the extent that they have abandoned their
mother tongue and have embraced the Turkish language as their own,
are being persecuted.
The promises which the Grand Vizier gave to the German ambassador
were not kept, and when the persecutions and killings continued, His
Holiness Monseigneur Paul Pierre XIII, the Armenian-Catholic Patriarch,
turned to the resident Spanish minister and asked him, in the name of
Catholic Spain, to try to turn once more to the Grand Vizier to obtain
that at least the safety of the Catholic Armenians were respected.
The Spanish minister, who consented and, using the words of the
Patriarch, objected to the Grand Vizier at the reception last Monday,
tells me that His Highness, after having listened to him, showed his
surprise about what had happened, and that he, when the minister
firmly claimed that he had proof that the cruelties mentioned had
actually taken place, noted it and promised to immediately order that
the Armenian Catholics were spared.
However, both the minister and the Patriarch are convinced that these
terrible persecutions will not cease, among other things because the
central government has no power over the provincial authorities,
who, when it suits them, do not obey the orders they receive from
Constantinople, and – last not least – because the Germans in their
opinion only pretend to protest against the persecutions and killings.
It is obvious, they say, that the Germans are interested in the
extermination of the Armenians and in the Greeks fleeing, who fear
that the same thing should happen to them, so that they (the Germans)
without effort can take over Turkey`s trade and become the only
Europeans with a foothold here.
The authorities in the provinces and the Young Turks, they say, do
not consider the German ambassadors’ application to the government
as serious.
I shall briefly allow myself to give an account of the important and
sad communications of the latest developments, that has been given
to me by completely reliable and truthful source, and which is of
such a nature that it will cause general regret everywhere in the
Christian world.
The Turks are vigorously carrying through their cruel intention,
to exterminate the Armenian people.
In Brussa they have forced the well-to-do Armenians to pay the police
300 Turkish pounds (approximately 5000 Danish kroner) a person to be
allowed to stay in the city, and yet the next day they have banished
them from the city with their wifes and children.
Where these unfortunate people are now, and what fate they have met
after they have had to leave their homes, it is not possible to learn
even for the closest family.
In Adana the governor has ordered the posting of a proclamation which,
in a French translation I have received from the Patriarchate, goes
as follows :
“1) Jusqu`a la fin du mois courant les armeniens se trouvant dans la
ville meme d`Adana doivent avoir ete expedies au fur et a mesure et par
groupes. 2) Les proprietaires des fabriques sises a Mersina et a Adana,
ainsi que les employes de celles-ci qui travaillent pour le compte
du Departement Militaire, son exemptes pour le moment : ils ne seront
pas expedies et seront employes comme auparavant dans leur travaux.
3) Les familles dont les soutiens ou les maris sont en service
militaire ne seront pas expedies.
4) Tout le monde doit, a partir d`aujourd`hui, regler et mettre en
ordre ses affaires et se tenir pret a l`ordre de monter en chemin
de fer.
5) Il ne sera fait aucun cas de recours, qui seront faits faits pour
une demande de prolongation de delai ou d`autres empechements. 6)
L`expedition se fera quartier par quartier. 7) Il ne sera permis
pour chaque famille que le transport d`une quantite de meubles de
150 kilos seulement.
8) Pour les familles composees de plus 6 personnes, grandes ou petites,
il sera permis le transport de 200 kilos de meubles.
9) La population musulmans de la ville et de la banlieue est obligee
de fournir, pour cette expedition, les moyens de transport.
10) La commission nommee pour s`occuper des moyens de transport,
a commence deja ses travaux.
11) Les familles qui se seraient procure elles-meme leur moyens
de transport, sont autorisees, en vertu des pièces qui leur seront
delivrees par les Commissaires de Police, a se rendre directement a
Badjou et de la a Alep.
12) Par le train qui sera prepare le samedi 15 du mois courant,
seront expedies les quartiers de Akdje, Nesjid, Saradjen, Kharab,
Bagtche, Tchoukour, Kassab Bekir, Yarbachi, Tcinanli et Karan.
13) A partir de demain la population de ces quartiers devra absolument
s`adresser a la Commission d`inscription placee sous la presidence de
Adil Bey dans le Commissariat de Police et après s`etre fait inscrire,
devra prendre une pièce scellee et legalisee.
14) Ceux qui d`après l`inscription de leur etat civil, sinon du nombre
des habitants de ces quartiers et qui actuellement resident ailleurs,
leurs domiciles actuels ne seront pas pris en consideration, mais
ils seront obligee d`aller se faire inscrire avec les habitants des
quartiers auxquels ils appartiennent, et de partir, dans la meme
journee, avec les habitants de leur quartier d`origine.
15) Pour l`expedition soit des familles de militaires, soit des
personnes qui se trouveraient habitant dans d`autres quartiers, il
sera tenu compte, pour principe d`operation, de l`enregistrement de
leur etat civil.
16) Toutes les operations qui ne seront pas faites par inscription,
ne seront pas prises en consideration.
17) La population de ses quartiers devra, au matin du jour designe
ci-haut a 12 heures a la turque, avec ses bagages, tel qu`il est
dit a l`Art. 7 et avec les membres de la famille, se trouver a
la Nouvelle Station. 18) On doit se rendre a Alep par la voie de
Osmanieh-Radjou. 19) Une Commission speciale etant envoyee a Osmanieh,
sur la presentation des pièces, conformement a l`Art. 13, distribuera
a chaque famille, dans la mesure possible, des moyens de transport
et organisera les expeditions par groupes.
20) A l`arrivee a Osmanieh la susdite Commission fera diligence pour
l`installation et le bien-etre des groupes : par consequent chaque
quartier devra faire par l`intermediarie de leur Mouhtar respectif,
recours a la susdite Commission.
21) La quantite des personnes employees dont le sejour a ete decide,
avant etre notifie aux bureaux de la Police et de la Gendarmerie,
il sera procede, par les dits bureaux, a la separation et au maintien
de ceux-ci.
22) La sera delivre par la direction de la police, aux personnes
ainsi exemptees, des documents reguliers et legalises, concernant
leur maintien.
23) Si parmi la population des quartiers qui ont ete avisees, il se
trouvait des personnes, qui, a partir de demain, ne se presenteraient
pas et ne se feraient inscrire, ou qui ne se trouveraient pas
presentes a la Nouvelle Station au jour indique pour le depart soit
le samedi 15 du mois courant a l`heure indique ou qui chercheraient a
trouver des ruses ou des pretextes, les Mouhtars et les Conseils des
vieillards sont obliges de prevenir les Autorites et si les habitants
et le Mouhtar auraient contrevenu a tout cela, ils seront consideres
comme ayant agi contre l`Autorite Militaire et les ordres de l`etat
de mobilisation et seront immediatement deferes a la Cour Martiale
et dans les 24 heures une sentence sera donnee et executee.
24) Les ordres formelles, comme il convent, ayant ete donnes a tous les
bureaux. Il est preferable de travailler a completer ces preparatifs
plutôt que de perdre du temps a chercher des pretextes et a faire
des demarches inutiles. Août 1915.
In a letter received here from the bishop of Erzerum, Monseigneur
Melchisedechian, it is stated that the parish of Khodirtchour, which
was made up of 12 villages, has been completely evacuated, and that
no one knows what has happened to the vanished population.
That same prelate, on July 17 this year, reported that he himself
had been forced to set out for an unknown destination, and nothing
has been heard of him since.
The former bishop of that same district, Monseigneur Ketchourian,
at the same time travelled to Constantinople, but disappeared along
the way.
The bishop of Karput, Monseigneur Israëlian, on June 23 reported to
the Patriarchate that he had been ordered to leave the town for Aleppo
with all of his parishioners within 48 hours, and it has later been
learned that this bishop and all the clergy that accompanied him have
been attacked and killed between Diarbekir and Urfa at a place where
approximately 1700 Armenian families have suffered the same fate.
The whole of the population in the abovementioned parish are considered
lost.
The population in the parishes of Diarbekir and Malatia has also been
driven out of their villages, and it is not known what has happened
to the bishops Tchelebian and Khatchadourian and their parishioners.
The sad message has also been confirmed that the archbishop of Mardin,
Monseigneur Maloyan, and approx. 700 of his Catholic parishioners
have been killed, and that the population in the town of Tallermen,
which was purely Catholic, has been completely exterminated.
Reports are completely lacking on what has happened to the bishop
of Mouch, Monseigneur Topuzian, and his parishioners, but there is
reason to believe that they too have been killed.
It is feared that a similar fate has befallen the clergy and
parishioners of Gurin.
In the parish of Sivas, the only village to have been spared is
Pirkinik, where the archbishop, Monseigneur Ketchedjian, has escaped
to. He, and one cleric that accompanied him, are the only survivors.
Trebizond, Samson, [illegible], Marsivan, and Amassia have been
completely evacuated, and there is no knowledge of what has happened
to the 47 clerics of these towns.
Tarsus, Hedzin, and Mersina have suffered the same fate.
In Angora, all of the men have been abducted from the town, and the
women have been forced to marry Muslims ; approximately 6000 men,
approximately 70 clerics, and the bishop, Monseigneur Gregoire Bahaban,
have been shot on the road to the place of banishment.
In the city of Ismid, the government has ordered that the Armenian
Catholics who had been banished to Eskicheir should be allowed to
return to their homes, but the governor would not let them enter
the city, and sent them back. The same thing has happened in many
other places.
Even here in Constantinople Armenians are being abducted and sent to
Asia, and it is not possible to get information of their whereabouts.
The Patriarchate has calculated that half of the Armenian-Catholic
hierarchy has been lost ; 7 bishops, approximately 100 priests, 70
other clerics, and thousands upon thousands of their parishioners
have disappeared.
The Church formerly consisted of 16 districts (Constantinople, Mardin,
Diarbekir, Karput, Malatia, Sivas-Tokat, Mouch, Erzerum, Trebisond,
Angora, Cesaree, Brussa, Adana, Marache, Aleppo, and Alexandrie [=
Alexandrette]), and according to the latest information only Marash,
Aleppo, and Cesaree have been spared outside of Constantinople.
The fate that thus has befallen the Catholic Armenians, have with
even greater cruelty befallen all the other Armenians, in that the
aim of the government, as I have already had the honor to report,
is to completely exterminate the Armenian people.
With the highest esteem I remain, Mr. Minister, yours faithfully
[Wandel]
—————————- ————————————————– —
DOCUMENT 3 1915-09-22-DK-001
The minister in Constantinople (Carl Ellis Wandel) to the foreign
minister (Erik Scavenius)
Source : Danish National Archives, Foreign Office,Group Cases
1909-1945. Dept. 139, Gr. D, No. 1, “Turkey – Inner Relations”.
Package 1, to Dec. 31, 1916
No. CXXV [125]
Constantinople, September 22, 1915.
Mr. Foreign Minister,
In my earlier reports I have already tried to demonstrate how H. M.
the Sultan rules, and how the Committee is managing.
I have tried to demonstrate that Turkey has been incautious in giving
up its neutrality, given that the country`s position will be very
difficult if the war ends with a victory of one of the groups of
Great Powers.
Regarding the fate of the country if the Entente powers win, Mr.
Foreign Minister is far better informed than I ; the matters that I
have the opportunity to observe will only have a minor influence in
the event of such an outcome, and I therefore prefer to deal with
the question of what will happen in the event of a victory for the
Central Powers.
If the Central Powers are victorious, and the Balkan coalition is
not being reformed against the “German danger,” Turkey will in all
probability be faced with the choice of either giving up the major
parts of its political and economic independence to the benefit of
Germany, who will then gain firm ground here, or to enter into a
probably rather hopeless struggle for independence against its mighty
ally, and when this choice is to be made, the matters that I observe
daily could be decisive.
There is already full awareness in the German embassy here, that a
serious conflict between Germany and Turkey, who in a future union
undoubtedly will demand an equal status, hardly will be avoidable,
even at best, if the chauvinists remain in power. Some remarks made
to me recently by the embassy`s advisory specialist in Balkan policy
is certainly indicative thereof.
When I, after having expressed my admiration for the great and
outstanding achievements of the German diplomatic and military missions
to the benefit of Germany`s interests, added that I still found it
hard to forgive German Balkan policy that it, by strengthening and
flattering the Committee, has helped bring about its arrogance and
xenophobia to such an extent that the government here has become
thoroughly intractable, he answered that, from the German position,
this was readily regretted.
“But you must not forget,” he said, “that we had no other option ;
we needed Turkey`s help – it was for us a matter of life and death,
and we had to let things slide.”
By and large, there can therefore hardly be much doubt about where
it goes from here ; since the foreign warships (station ships) left
the roadstead of Constantinople, the presumptuousness of the Young
Turks has been ever increasing, and there can probably be no talk of
moderation in thought and principles before the ships return.
A thorough study of the prospects in the event of a victory for the
Central Powers, though, faces many difficulties, since it is almost
impossible to obtain reliable information about the composition and
practical circumstances of the true, but irresponsible, government
of the country – the Committee. The history of the Committe has not
yet been written, and the persons who know it dare not speak out.
Considering the topicality of the subject, I will still try to give,
based on what I learn here, a short description of the Committee
and its men – who make up a kind of directorate, consisting of 15-20
members, that decides the actions of the government – and of the change
in its policy since July 1908, when it intervened for the first time
in the fate of the country with a firm grip and, measured with the
standards of this country, [became] a uniquely thorough organization.
The distinctive feature of the Young Turk Committee has always been,
and still is, its organizational strength. Without this firmness,
the Committee would not have been able to withstand being persecuted
by despotism, and to even grow in strength to such an extent that
it could topple the old regime. This organizational firmness, which
the Committee created in its earliest days when it toiled with its
great work of liberation, it has kept since that time, for better
or for worse, and when in power it has, aided by that firmness,
been able to get away with unpunished abuses similar to that of
the toppled despotism, [and,] aided by it, it could regain power by
determined action when it had been dethroned. And the Committee is
not only equipped with this organizational strength, it also is and
has always been the only Turkish political organization in possession
of this quality ; all the other parties, that have been formed since
the introduction of the constitution, have lacked it – and they have
quickly succumbed.
An effect of this state of things is that the top positions of the
Committee are no longer held by the theorists who originally drew
up the program of the Committee, but by its political-organizational
leaders, those men who have worked in the service of the organization
from the beginning, not as great idealists or founding statesmen,
but as organizers who use all means to further the well-being of their
organization. This fact also explains that the Committee now, albeit
under much the same leaders as in its earliest years of struggle,
actually fights for a completely different program than then it had –
it is not the ideals, but power that has been and is being fought for.
Among the men in the leadership of the Committee, one first of all
has to mention the present leader of the government, interior minister
Talaat Bey, without doubt a significant politician.
Talaat Bey, former telegraphist in the provinces, was working for
the Committee from its earliest days, and he came to the forefront
immediately after the revolution as one of the leaders of Turkish
politics, but only after 1909 did he and other Young Turk leaders
become direct members of the government – Talaat Bey as interior
minister – to replace the old Pashas, who still for some time had
been allowed to remain in office as puppets. It was Talaat Bey who,
when the Committee had been toppled by “the liberating officers”
(in the Spring of 1912), led the secret effort of the Committee
to regain power, and he who, together with his friends, in effect,
by nationalistic demonstrations, forced Kiamil [Kamil] Pasha, the
then Grand Vizier, to engage in the unfortunate war against the
Balkan states (the end of 1912), instead of accepting to effectively
implement the reforms demanded by the Powers. And once again, it was
Talaat Bey who, together with Enver Pasha, was the leader behind the
new coup d`etat, that once again brought the Young Turks to power –
in accordance with Talaat`s plan at the exact moment when the Kiamil
cabinet sent the note to the Great Powers, where it gave up Adrianople
as a result of the urgent requests of those Powers. Kiamil Pasha`s
abandonment of the holy Adrianople would have put the men of the coup
d`etat in a more flattering light as national liberators who toppled
the cabinet that had unnecessarily surrendered parts of the country,
but, as chance would have it, the toppled cabinet had not delivered
the note of reply to the Powers (it had been sent, but because of an
editorial error it was called back before the delivery to the Austrian
ambassador), and it was the new Young Turk ministry that was left with
responsibility for the decision. It was luck – the internal struggle
of the Balkan states – and not foresight that saved Talaat and the
Committee`s power and regained Adrianople for Turkey.
Since then, Talaat has more and more become the centre of the Young
Turk Committee. The military members – and especially Enver Pasha
– have had to focus on the defence of the country, and the entire
government has slipped into the hands of Talaat Bey, who actually is
both minister of the interior, of finance, and of foreign affairs.
Close to Talaat is his friend Halil Bey, chairman of the deputy chamber
and of the Committee, Bedri Bey, prefect of the security police in
Turkey (in the Spring of 191[ ?] he had been condemned to death for
having shot a military police officer, had later escaped from prison,
been pardoned, and made chief of public security), Nazim Bey, the
Committee`s chauvinist secretary general and leader of the daily
administration of the Committee, Midhat Chukri Bey and Behaeddine
Chakir Bey, also pronounced chauvinists, Hussein Djahid Bey, former
editor of the Committee`s organ “Tanin,” and Djavid Bey, the former
finance minister, who took care of the great loan in France in 1914,
from a Jewish family that converted to Islam, originally school
inspector in the provinces, etc., etc.
A person completely preoccupied at the moment by the military events
is Enver Pasha, the officer who, together with Niazi Bey who was
killed shortly after, in June 1908 raised the rebel banner with his
troops in Albania, and thereby originated the revolution itself,
after which he became military attache in Berlin, a nomination that
surely has had a great impact on the relationship between Germany and
Turkey. After having returned to Turkey he became chief of staff for
the 10th Army Corps, was an active participant in the coup d`etat in
1913, and led the triumphant expedition to Adrianople. As a reward
he was, albeit relatively late, made minister of war in January 1914,
and thereby gained all of Turkey`s military power in his hand, after
the Committee had fired all the old generals and high ranking officers,
who enjoyed popularity with the troops, and replaced them with Enver
Pasha`s new proteges.
Another influential military member of the Committee was until lately
Enver Pasha`s co-suitor to the military leadership, Djemal Pasha, the
former military commander of Constantinople, named Pasha the same day
as Enver, decorated with the Osmanieh Order at the same time as Enver,
and finally, on Enver Pasha`s advice, made traffic minister to limit
his influence, but later, after urgent request, made marine minister,
a capacity in which he worked with great force on the renewal of the
fleet right until the beginning of the war, when he left Constantinople
as chief of the army that was sent to Egypt. From this time on, Djemal
Pasha has naturally been unable to participate in the governing of
Turkey, and the Marine Ministry too has been in the hands of Enver.
Among other people who have left their mark on the work of the
Committee during the past time, besides from the “liberator” Mahmoud
Chevket Pasha who was murdered in June 1913, must be mentioned Azmi
Bey, who, together with the then military commander of the city,
Djemal Pasha, and in connection with Talaat Bey, led the terror
regime as Chief of Police in the capital after the killing of Mahmoud
Chevket Pasha, but who on the Russian embassy`s firm demand was sent
to Konia shortly thereafter as governor, furthermore Hadji Adil Bey,
the present governor in Adrianople, mentioned in my report No. CXXIII
[123] of yesterday, and finally 2 men, who have eventually distanced
themselves from the Committee because they could not follow it in its
lust for power and its abuse : Rahmy Bey, the governor of the vilayet
Aidin (Smyrna), who, as also mentioned in my earlier reports, several
times has opposed the Committee`s orders when he found them unjust,
and Ahmed Riza Bey, who became the only important opponent of the
Committee`s autocracy in the last parliamentary session. Riza Tevfik
Bey, an influential member in the early days of the Committee as the
original intellectual protagonist of the Committee, and very esteemed
by all sides, also by the opponents of the Committee, was already at
an early stage repulsed by the way the rulers realized his ideals,
and was already in 1910 among the opponents of the Committee.
The Committee for Union and Progress took control under the motto :
Equal rights for all Ottomans. But to achieve the unity, that was at
the beginning of the Committe`s title, in the vast and ethnographically
tangled empire, there had to be created both an Ottoman sense of unity
shared by all peoples of the empire, and be raised guarantees that
this new “Ottomanism” would also be led by the Young Turk members
of the Committee in the future, both be created equal rights for all
Ottoman citizens, without consideration for nationality and religion
(the idealistic demands of the revolution), and made sure that the new
Ottomanism would still become a purely Turkish movement. The struggle
between these demands lasted for some time, until the Committee
immediately after the end of the Balkan war threw one of the demands
(equal rights for all Ottomans) overboard and decided to go forward
along the road of Turkification, the road that is characterized by
the anti-Greek boycott in the Spring of 1914 that affected those
Greeks who were Ottoman subjects just as well as the Greek subjects,
the simultaneous persecutions of the Greeks in Asia Minor and Thrace,
and, later that same year – with German assistance – the declaration
of Jihad, which was favoured by the World War and the subsequent
abrogation of the capitulations, and which finally has led to the
xenophobic and nationalistic policy, whose effects I have lately looked
closely upon several times in my reports, and whose main purpose at the
moment is the extermination of the Armenian population of the empire.
Mr. Foreign Minister will maybe realize from this account, in spite of
its faultiness, that it does not seem to be men with great political
refinement and experience, or with good knowledge, who now rule Turkey,
but people whose foolhardiness and irrepressable force of will and
action has replaced the former inertia, which was the strength of
the old Pashas before 1908, and Germany, should the occasion arise,
will have to realize that they are not manageable.
They are chauvinists and xenophobes, more or less true fanatics and
enthusiastic desperados ; for some of them there can be no doubt about
their integrity, but the common perception is that it will continue
down that same road that has already led to so many serious conflicts.
After the Greeks and the Armenians, the Jews and the Germans will most
likely be next, and it is very probable that the present government
will, at a given moment, prefer to play va banque and put everything on
the line, rather than understand that wise compliance and a compromise
for practical reasons can be preferable to a policy that almost can
be characterized as national suicide.
With the highest esteem I remain, Mr. Minister, yours faithfully
[Wandel]
—————————- ————————————————– —
DOCUMENT 4
1916-04-27-DK-001
The minister in Constantinople (Carl Ellis Wandel) to the foreign
minister (Erik Scavenius)
Source : Danish National Archives, Foreign Office, Group Cases
1909-1945. Dept. 139, Gr. N, No. 1, “Armenia”
No. LXXXXVIII [98]
Constantinople, April 27, 1916.
Confidential.
Mr. Foreign Minister,
The Papal minister [Angelo Marie Dolci] yesterday turned up in the
local Spanish legation [in Constantinople] accompanied by a German
Catholic priest who had arrived here from the Turkish Vilayet of Angora
in Asia Minor, where he has witnessed the treatment that has befallen
the local Armenian Catholic congregation, and which he introduced to
the [Spanish] minister, whom they asked to intervene and protest to
the Porte in the name of Catholic Spain.
The reason for their turning to the Spanish legation, they said, was
because the German and Austrian embassies had such a relationship
with the Turkish government that they, in order not to [offend]
it, had to show so much consideration that they really could not
energetically plead the cause of the Armenians.
When one bears in mind that the two embassies mentioned represent
24 and 34 million Catholics respectively, and that the leader of the
Catholic Centrum of the German Reichstag [Matthias Erzberger] in these
very days is here in Constantinople on an official visit as a guest
of the Turkish government, and that the local German ambassador,
Count Metternich, himself is a Catholic, one can conclude by this
request how careful the German diplomacy in Turkey is now acting,
and the extent to which it weighs Germany`s political considerations
over all other considerations.
Even though, as it appears from my report No. CXIII [113] of September
4 last year, 13 of the 16 Catholic congregations that existed among
the Armenians in Turkey outside of Constantinople have disappeared
completely, without anyone having knowledge of what has happened to
all of the clergy, the Catholic Centrum of the German Reichstag does
not seem to dare to attempt any forceful intervention on behalf of
its unfortunate, persecuted co-religionists.
While describing the state of things, I shall not refrain from adding
that it is very possible that even a vigorous German diplomatic
intervention on behalf of the Armenians would not move the Turkish
government to refrain from its project, because the great effort that
the local American embassy, which does not have to show the same
kind of consideration as the German and Austrian embassy, has done
to save the Armenians, has, the American Charge d`Affaires [Phillips]
tells me, been fruitless, and this has in all probability, after what
I only later have learned, also been one of the contributing factors
to the departure of the American ambassador [Henry Morgenthau].
With the highest esteem I remain, Mr. Minister, yours faithfully
[Wandel]
—————————- ————————————————– —
———————————————- ———————————-
DOCUMENT 5
1916-03-14-DK-001
The minister in Constantinople (Carl Ellis Wandel) to the foreign
minister (Erik Scavenius)
Source : Danish National Archives, Foreign Office, Group Cases
1909-1945. Dept. 139, Gr. N, No. 1, “Armenia”
1 enclosure.
No. LVIII [58]
Constantinople, March 14, 1916.
Mr Foreign Minister,
In continuation of my report No. LIV [54] dated the 10th of this
month concerning the persecutions of the Armenians, I have the honor
to report that the latest pieces of information received here state
that the general removal of the Armenian population, which has already
taken place in all the other Vilayets of Asia Minor except for the
Vilayet Aidin (Smyrna), has now also begun in the Vilayet of Castamuni,
in which the Armenians hitherto have not been disturbed.
The governor of the Vilayet of Castamuni, who has not used the
authority given to him to have the Armenian population removed,
has been dismissed, and in his place the governor up till now of the
Vilayet of Angora, who has been more zealous, has been appointed.
I use the opportunity to send an enclosed official announcement from
today concerning the execution of 4 Armenians, who were hanged in
Stambul yesterday morning.
With the highest esteem I remain, Mr. Minister, yours faithfully
[Wandel]
Enclosure : “Lloyd Ottoman”, March 14, 1916 :
Pendaisons
Du commandement de la place :
Par decision de la cour martiale sont condamnes a la peine capitale
: Les nommes Horen veledi Hatchadour Beremian, forgeron habitant
la quartier Kouyoumdji a Adapazar, Kirkor veledi Ohannès, Kabian,
locataire de l`hôtel Ararat et du casino habitant dans le quartier
Abdal de la meme ville, le bijoutier Karabet veledi Ohannès Patokian,
du village Bagdjedjik (Ismidt), convaincus d`avoir fait partie du
comite revolutionnaire armenien et d`avoir neglige de remettre,
durant le delai prescrit, aux autorites les bombes cachees dans leur
maison ; ainsi que le converti Mehmed Chakir bin Minas alias Abdullah,
de Brousse coinvancu d`avoir complote contre le gouvernement ottoman
et d`avoir fait l`espionnage contre le gouvernement pou le compte du
gouvernement Anglais et le nomme Adem effendi de Monastir, agent de
police, convaincu d`avoir assassine par premeditation Ali Riza bey,
merkez m’mour du poste Tcinili a Scutari.
Cette decision de la court martiale ayant ete sanctionnee par irade
imperial, l`execution a eu lieu hier matin. Les quatre premiers
condamnes ont ete pendus sur la place de Bayazid et l`agent de police
Adem effendi pres du debarcadère de Scutari.
# # #
———————————————– ———————-
Translations of reports from the archives of the Danish foreign
ministry documenting the Armenian genocide were by Matthias Bjørnlund.
Copyright Matthias Bjørnlund and Wolfgang Gust,
website :
email : [email protected].
–Boundary_(ID_rwZ53vZAMhF /il0yEaQK7Q)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress